Water changes

[Sanityassassin]

Tanks 30 gallons and larger need half of the water changed weekly. Plain and simple,

Well, i'm glad you're not in charge of my 400g system then, because your recommended water change schedule would kill all my fish within a month! Plain and simple.

80% a week on my system is the bare minimum.

OP, you really need to get a grasp of the requirements for YOUR system. How can anyone who isn't familiar with your system, stocking levels, feeding regime etc etc pin point what water change schedule is going to work for you?

There simply is no blanket water change schedule that fits all systems.

 

[Ichthys]

Tanks less than 30 gallons need half the water changed twice a week. Tanks 30 gallons and larger need half of the water changed weekly.

Let’s see the rule again. You’re saying that all small tanks need more water changes than all big tanks, regardless of biomass. So a lightly stocked small tank, your rule says, needs more water changes than a heavily stocked big tank. Can you explain how that would work?
Water changes are dictated by biomass, and tank size is totally irrelevant. Your rule implies that biomass is irrelevant. If you think it’s that “simple”, as you’ve said twice, you’re ignoring the basics.

The health of a tank is completely about the water.

No. Water is important, obviously, but the health of a tank’s occupants is completely about stress. Water is one of many things that can cause stress.

 

[10 Tanks]

Let’s see the rule again. You’re saying that all small tanks need more water changes than all big tanks, regardless of biomass. So a lightly stocked small tank, your rule says, needs more water changes than a heavily stocked big tank. Can you explain how that would work?
Water changes are dictated by biomass, and tank size is totally irrelevant. Your rule implies that biomass is irrelevant. If you think it’s that “simple”, as you’ve said twice, you’re not understanding the basics.



No. Water is important, obviously, but the health of a tank’s occupants is completely about stress. Water is one of many things that can cause stress.

Hello. A stable and healthy water chemistry will create a stress free environment for the fish.

10 Tanks (Now 11)

 

[10 Tanks]

Well, i'm glad you're not in charge of my 400g system then, because your recommended water change schedule would kill all my fish within a month! Plain and simple.

80% a week on my system is the bare minimum.

OP, you really need to get a grasp of the requirements for YOUR system. How can anyone who isn't familiar with your system, stocking levels, feeding regime etc etc pin point what water change schedule is going to work for you?

There simply is no blanket water change schedule that fits all systems.

Hello. Clean water conditions don't kill fish. Nitrogen build up does. If you change half the water in your tank every week and your fish are dying, you should be looking into something other than your water change routine.

10 Tanks (Now 11)

 

[Ichthys]

Hello. A stable and healthy water chemistry will create a stress free environment for the fish.

10 Tanks (Now 11)

Here you’re ignoring tankmates, tank size, decor, lighting, outside stresses…. all other causes of stress apart from water.

f you change half the water in your tank every week and your fish are dying, you should be looking into something other than your water change routine.

Unless 50% a week isn’t enough. Here were ignoring stocking levels again.

I’m giving up now. It seems we’re going round in circles.

 

[Byron]

You are absolutely right, I'm not denying that stability in an aquarium environment is essential for the long term welfare of the inhabitants. That's a no brainer.

But in a tiny closed loop environment such as a fish tank, where overstocking and overfeeding are often rife, then that stability is pretty hard to come by, you'd be forever changing your water to fight the negligible rises in pollutant.

Unless you have a continuous drip system running then waste toxin build up is inescapable, even at low increments such as the 2ppm you allude to.

Nitrate, although far from being the only "nasty", is a good measureable pre cursor to determine your water quality, and the hobbyist can work their water change schedule around that.

It's not ideal, far from it. You're never going to replicate the vast open expanse of a natural waterway in an overcrowded puddle!

We can but do our best given the tiny environments we are working with.

If I am correctly understanding this, I do not agree with a couple points. First, it is certainly possible to have stable water parameters and conditions. That is the point of water changes. Various forms of "pollution" increase and the only way to remove them is a water change. If the tank is overstocked, remove some fish. If it is overfed, stop. These are not justifiable excuses for poor maintenance. The fact is that the more water changed regularly, the better for the fish. If we cannot have a flow-through, agreed, then we up the volume of the water changes.

Changing for example 70% once a week removes 70% of the pollutants once a week. Removing 10% every day comes no where near this, as each day you are leaving behind 90% and it accumulates and accumulates.

 

[Naughts]

It intrigues me that people will see no problem walking dogs, which take me hours every week and isn't always convenient (the puppy got me up at 5:37 this morning and it's raining), and see a problem in using 30 minutes to care for their fish once a week.

Fish don't bark/ whine/ howl. Or pee on the carpet.

 

[Sanityassassin]

First, it is certainly possible to have stable water parameters and conditions. That is the point of water changes.

I look at it like this. Just after one of my weekly 80% water changes, my water is at it's sparkling best, very low in toxins.

A week later it is not at its sparkling best, hence the need for another water change.

So, during the space of a week my water has gone from great to, let's say, pretty good, at best.

That gradual deterioration in water quality is what all hobbyists experience, you can't get away from it, unless you have a drip system.

A drip system keeps your water extremely stable. At the end of the day a drip system in an aquarium is as close as you are going to get to what happens in nature.

If you don't have a drip system and you just do weekly water changes then that means that your water isn't very stable at all, because it's gradually deteriorating as each day goes by. That's what I was getting at when I said it's not easy to keep your water truly stable.

And of course, if you stuff your tank full of fish and feed heavy then you are adding to that stability problem no end.

A sensibly stocked tank on the other hand, with sensible feeding would give you a fighting chance of keeping your water reasonably stable, but even given that scenario, the water quality is still gradually deteriorating, so stability is compromised.

 

[Byron]

I look at it like this. Just after one of my weekly 80% water changes, my water is at it's sparkling best, very low in toxins.

A week later it is not at its sparkling best, hence the need for another water change.

So, during the space of a week my water has gone from great to, let's say, pretty good, at best.

That gradual deterioration in water quality is what all hobbyists experience, you can't get away from it, unless you have a drip system.

A drip system keeps your water extremely stable. At the end of the day a drip system in an aquarium is as close as you are going to get to what happens in nature.

If you don't have a drip system and you just do weekly water changes then that means that your water isn't very stable at all, because it's gradually deteriorating as each day goes by. That's what I was getting at when I said it's not easy to keep your water truly stable.

And of course, if you stuff your tank full of fish and feed heavy then you are adding to that stability problem no end.

A sensibly stocked tank on the other hand, with sensible feeding would give you a fighting chance of keeping your water reasonably stable, but even given that scenario, the water quality is still gradually deteriorating, so stability is compromised.

Agree. But we do know that the more water changed the better, and that is really all that matters. The other issues like stocking/feeding/compatible fish. sufficient numbers of a shoaling species--all these do or can negatively impact the biosystem and must be considered.

 

[Magnum Man]

So 1st off I am a proponent of sizable water changes…

However, nature is rarely stable… often flood plains come, and fish move around… flood plains dry up, and fish move around again… picture a betta that lives in a puddle, sometimes in the wet seasons, his puddle merges with others, sometimes during dry seasons, it may dry up completely, and he becomes part of the food chain… if he’s lucky, his puddle doesn’t dry up completely, but his water quality runs the gambit of maybe nice, to mud, yet hopefully he survives… I personally think we should do our best to keep his water quality in a survive- able condition… a lot of this is our desire to control, not duplicate nature…

 

[Naughts]

a betta that lives in a puddle

You do know, this is a myth?

 

[Byron]

The vast majority of habitats from which our fish come are in fact far more stable than many would have us think. Temperature--water has a high specific heat capacity which means that temperature changes are resisted and occur relatively slowly. In terrestrial environments, daily temperature ranges of 15C/27F due to solar heating are not unusual. Most aquatic environments however will vary only by 3-4C/5-7F. Seasonal temperature changes in tropical aquatic environments occur slowly over a period of months if they occur at all. This means that fish have evolved in an environment where the temperature remains relatively stable and any changes that may occur do so slowly.

Changes in the GH, KH and pH of most tropical watercourses do not vary. There are probably exceptions somewhere, but that doesn't matter, most do not. And nitrate in these waters is so low it can generally not be measured.

During the dry season watercourses can reduce or even dry up. And the fish die. Most do not survive unless they were able to escape the conditions. Here I am thinking of the Amazon again.

Stable environment is much more stable than many would try to tell us. [Much of this is data from the Manual of Fish Health authored by Dr Chris Andrews, Adrian Exell, Dr. Neville Carrington, Dr. Peter Burgess.]

 

[Magnum Man]

BTW… the betta was used metaphorically

 

[Ram419]

I've found that plants have a lot to do with lowering nitrates over time.

I have one tank that doesn't have as many plants as others ones I keep. It has sand only substrate and doesn't keep plants very well. It is a 10 gallon tank. The 5 green emerlad corydoras don't help with keeping the plants either. The tank also has 3 zebra danio. All of these fish are around a year old now and I've never had any issues with them. The nitrates can get to around 80ppm. I've started doing more water changes and it stays at around 20ppm by me doing that. I give about 4 sinking Omega One catfish pellets for the corys and a fairly mall pinch of flakes for the danios once per day. There's also 2 assasin snails in there so they eat as well. Am I overfeeding?

I do have some plants in the 10 gallon tank. One of them being a lilly which is taking up almost half side of the tank now. The corys love it under the pads. There's a few other plants growing too now. It's just slow going.

 

[Byron]

So 1st off I am a proponent of sizable water changes…

However, nature is rarely stable… often flood plains come, and fish move around… flood plains dry up, and fish move around again… picture a betta that lives in a puddle, sometimes in the wet seasons, his puddle merges with others, sometimes during dry seasons, it may dry up completely, and he becomes part of the food chain… if he’s lucky, his puddle doesn’t dry up completely, but his water quality runs the gambit of maybe nice, to mud, yet hopefully he survives… I personally think we should do our best to keep his water quality in a survive- able condition… a lot of this is our desire to control, not duplicate nature…

I'm going to do a slight detour here, hope no one minds. The above post reminded me.

Betta splendens seems to live solitary in its natural habitat which is still and sluggish waters, including rice paddies, swamps, roadside ditches, streams and ponds. Such an environment is not conducive to fish that require oxygenated waters so one can expect few if any non-anabantid species to live in such habitats. During the dry season, most bettas are able to bury themselves in the bottom of their dried up habitat. There, they can live in moist cavities until water once again fills the depression during a rainy period. The fish can survive even if thick, clay mud is all that is left of the water. They do not survive total drying out of the bottom (Vierke 1988). There are very few fish species, and none that are found in the same habitats, that can manage life in such conditions, which is further evidence that the B. splendens is most likely a solitary species.

References for the above which is cited from my article on this species:

Betta splendens profile on Seriously Fish.com

Hargrove, M. (1999), The Betta: an Owner's Guide to a Happy Healthy Fish, Howell Book House.

Kottelat, M. (2013) "The fishes of the inland waters of southeast Asia: a catalogue and core bibliography of the fishes known to occur in freshwaters, mangroves and estuaries," Raffles Bulletin of Zoology Supplement No. 27: 1-663.

Tan, H. H. and P. K. L. Ng (2005), "The fighting fishes (Teleostei: Osphronemidae: genus Betta) of Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei," Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 13, pp. 43-99.

Tan, H. H. and P. K. L. Ng (2005), "The labyrinth fishes (Teleostei: Anabanatoidei, Channoidei) of Sumatra, Indonesia," Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement No. 13, pp. 115-138.

Vierke, J. (1988), Bettas, Gouramis, and Other Anabantoids, T.F.H. Publication, Inc.